CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[SeaKingTacco]

There is no precedent for a federal policing contract in Ontario so we a split-balling, but if it followed the current OPP contract model, a place like Pet or Borden would simply be rolled into the local detachment. Even when absorbing a municipal service, they will no longer establish a dedicate detachment. Very briefly state, a contract involves a combination of a per-capita amount plus a calls-for-service amount (for initial contracts, that number is drawn from existing records for, I believe, three years). For that you get a police service; no site security, property checks, key control, etc. The ability/authority to control or limit people on the property would be questionable. Anything that is specific under the NDA, federal traffic regs, etc. would be difficult, both because of the movement of personnel but their concept of 'closest car'. It may be that a neighbouring detachment unit is closer. I could really see this happening at Borden.

It would largely be new ground since a CF facility is both a work space and a residential space. They would have to sort out some kind of equivalent to a Police Services Board which is a requirement under the Community Safety and Policing Services Act. There would also be no communications linkage between the police service and local CoC on individual incidents, even if they impacted operational matters, as I assume there is with MPs. As well, the CoC would have no input into how, why or when the policing service is delivered, which could be a good thing or bad thing.

If it involved a municipal PS like Ottawa or North Bay, there is no model for contract policing. Municipal PSs do contract policing of other municipalities but they are free to do it in any way that makes both parties happy and so long it satisfies the Ministry that it is 'adequate and effective'.

You would be surprised how little the mPs want to tell the CoC what is going on, anymore.

 

[QV]

Last FY the MP responded to 40,006 calls for service in Canada. I'm not sure if that's alot or not very much for a police force?

Offloading it to civpol would probably require some additional hiring and funding for local detachments.

I also wonder if civpol would ignore some of the regular or routine calls the MP get.

Scrap the NDA act or have local police enforce it and things like NDs and disobeying lawful orders?


How many MP would it take to provide an adequate level of security?

A majority of those are not serious police matters but more administrative in nature (lost ID card, building insecurity report, damage to public property (someone broke something). The actual calls for service that warrant a police response, by any normal Canadian standard, is relatively small. Unit disciplinary matters are for the chain of command. Do you really need a police investigation when a soldier disobeys a lawful command, is absent without authority, negligent discharge? I say hell no. Pte Bloggins was ordered to be at work for 0700hrs, he arrived at 0745hrs and provided no adequate excuse. AWOL!

To determine the number of armed personnel for adequate security would require a proper assessment of assets and needs. I suggest it could be done with existing numbers - with room to adjust up or down as time goes on. Spittballing again... Would 100 armed FP soldiers be enough to provide 24/7 security at a critical installation? You have over 1200 MPs, that's 12 companies of 100 troops that could be placed. How many critical sites are there and what number is adequate for each? There are lost of variables but I don't think this is a difficult assessment if it's properly drilled down.

 

[dapaterson]

Contracting Provincial/Municipal Services is about the most complicated and difficult solution.

Most complicated and difficult is generally the default CoA.

 

[QV]

Rough structure of a Force Protection Regiment.

VCDS
I
DGDS
I
FP Regt - Col
-Regt HQ

FP Battalion - LCol

• the bulk of the organization. Consisting of several FP Companies assigned to sensitive site security throughout Canada at CFBs (companies lead by a Maj or Capt)
• troop strength at sites range from Platoon to Company+ based on assets under protection, may have K9, surveillance, or other assets assigned.
• includes assets for D&S such as vehicles, weapons, security barriers, hasty defence improvements on store such as hesco, electronic fences..etc etc. Surveillance equipment...
• each site staffed appropriate for all general security functions, patrols, IDENT sections, alarm monitoring, physical security, key control/access control etc, support to sustained deployed operations, and able to scale up to full BASF mode without needing "BASF/WASF". There would be a 24hr duty centre once again - yay!
• each defence establishment would have a rotation of FP on shift work, cycling through a training cycle, admin cycle, as well as a local command/support element.

FP School - Maj
- Training Cadre and Location where QL3-QL6B training occurs. Including coordinating and supporting specialized training such as K9/surveillance/CP/AM etc. QL training would drop all police functions and focus on security applications, convoy/FOB d&s, support weapons, CQB.

FB Support Battalion - LCol

• Air Marshal Unit
• CFPSU
• Surveillance
• Small version of NIS
• Port Security Liaison Cadre

There could be movement between DGDS's other sections and the FP Regt for career progression or for a place to park people on MELs.

Imagine how cool it would be if RCAF technicians could focus on that and not be guarding a plane somewhere.

 

[lenaitch]

I don’t see anything in the NDA preventing the MND from setting up a DND police service, but frankly, why would he? Either use the mPs or bring in the RCMP. Contracting Provincial/Municipal Services is about the most complicated and difficult solution.

I agree about the complexity, but involving the RCMP would likely be equally challenging. They aren't really flush with people and in two provinces that have large bases, they exist in relatively small numbers.

According to the folks at Pearson when it was federally operated. site/property security is particularly unexciting.

You would be surprised how little the mPs want to tell the CoC what is going on, anymore.

No doubt. I was more thinking if someone was nabbed and unable to report for imminent duty. Maybe the MPs don't do that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The actual calls for service that warrant a police response, by any normal Canadian standard, is relatively small.

I'll buy that.

Unit disciplinary matters are for the chain of command.

March the guilty bastard in.

Do you really need a police investigation when a soldier disobeys a lawful command, is absent without authority, negligent discharge? I say hell no.

Maybe not. Might depend on the severity. MP were given authority to lay charges because units were fucking it off when it was convenient to do so.

Pte Bloggins was ordered to be at work for 0700hrs, he arrived at 0745hrs and provided no adequate excuse. AWOL!

Being AWOL without an adequate reason for almost an hour in the military is a pretty big deal.

Would 100 armed FP soldiers be enough to provide 24/7 security at a critical installation? You have over 1200 MPs, that's 12 companies of 100 troops that could be placed.

I know our infantry battalions have a difficult time fielding 5 full companies -I've seen infantry platoons on ex with 12 people. And the infantry is one of the easiest trades out there. I think you might be over estimating the MP ability to field 100 person Force Protection companies.

Sounds like a better model would be to disband all MPs and make a new general duties trade that requires a 3 week course, not 5 or 6 months. Lite-infantry perhaps.

 

[QV]

I'll buy that.


March the guilty bastard in. Not unlike any other internal disciplinary process.


Maybe not. Might depend on the severity. MP were given authority to lay charges because units were fucking it off when it was convenient to do so. a problem with the chain of command can't be addressed by offloading their responsibility to someone else.


Being AWOL without an adequate reason for almost an hour in the military is a pretty big deal.


I know our infantry battalions have a difficult time fielding 5 full companies -I've seen infantry platoons on ex with 12 people. And the infantry is one of the easiest trades out there. I think you might be over estimating the MP ability to field 100 person Force Protection companies. Its not one of the easiest trades. There are aspects to infantry that don't appeal to a lot of people who have options. You're correct however in that there would be retention challenges. If the CAF turns it into a green Cmre job, then it will suck and be useless and retention will be a gigantic problem and it won't serve it's purpose. If the CAF turns into a useful, tactical outfit with good equipment, great training that is frequent (not 90 rnds a year for your annual qual) appropriate staffing, options and taskings, then it will be a good go. The specialized units and embassy assignments also make it appealing. If it's not quality, then forget about it - it would be useless to the CAF and few would want to do it.

Sounds like a better model would be to disband all MPs and make a new general duties trade that requires a 3 week course, not 5 or 6 months. Lite-infantry perhaps. "Infantry lite" might be the wrong approach. You would need much more than three weeks of training. Convoy protection alone would require crewed weapons and tactics appropriate for vehicle ops in open and urban environments as well as a dismounted piece. There's nav/driving/command and control and lots of other training and qualifications that goes with just that one capability.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Having a hard time quoting your reply I'll work on it.

 

[FJAG]

Just a brief reminder that the current MP structure and authorities arose out of the Somalia Inquiry and the 1997 Dickson "Report of the Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and the Military Police Investigation Service."

They recommended, in part, that:

• The primary roles of the military police are two-fold: (a) field and garrison duties which are essentially of a military nature, and (b) investigative responsibilities which are almost wholly of a policing nature. These two distinctive roles are frequently in conflict as to their differing requirements for command and control responsibility.

• These two roles of the military police must be separated into structures that expressly reflect their differing nature: one, a traditional force of military police for military support functions at the garrison level under the established chain of command; and another; distinctive investigative policing service which reports independently of the chain of command.

There was considerable debate and follow-up to the Dickson report. I recall it as an interesting time as much of the office of the JAG and other agencies were moved up one floor in the Constitution to work out all the implementation aspects of the Report for a year or so. There's a paper that discusses much of the MP aftermath - Kent Roach "Police Independence and the Military Police" - published in 2011 to discuss the 2011 amendments to the NDA brought forward in Bill C-15.

To put it politely, Somalia was followed by an orgy of studies, reports, academic discussions, camel's noses under tents, empire carving and publishing of legislation, regulations and policies entwined in predictions that the sky was falling. In theory, the world has become a better but much more complicated place.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know our infantry battalions have a difficult time fielding 5 full companies -I've seen infantry platoons on ex with 12 people. And the infantry is one of the easiest trades out there. I think you might be over estimating the MP ability to field 100 person Force Protection companies.

Sounds like a better model would be to disband all MPs and make a new general duties trade that requires a 3 week course, not 5 or 6 months. Lite-infantry perhaps.

I have had to guard an active airfield (for weeks) as part of a 24/7/365 BGp+ defense and security effort. The task was mainly filled by Infantry rifle companies, with backup from other specialists.

It was a necessary task but a complete waste of Infantry, IMHO.

 

[Furniture]

I have had to guard an active airfield (for weeks) as part of a 24/7/365 BGp+ defense and security effort. The task was mainly filled by Infantry rifle companies, with backup from other specialists.

It was a necessary task but a complete waste of Infantry, IMHO.

Which is why some allies hire people specifically for the task, like the USAF and RAF.

I think the primary issues with retention and interest can be somewhat addressed if the CAF gets serious about incentivizing the things we want people to do. Make SDA/LDA tied to being in the field/at sea, then create instructor and shift worker allowances.

Why would anyone be a shift worker when you get paid the same as a person working M-F, plus getting all the shorts, specials, and sliders? Even Sobey's figured that out in the early 2000s, and offered me an extra $0.50/hour to work the overnight shifts.

 

[lenaitch]

If the goal is to provide security for certain tech because the US will demand it, would it be just where the 'platforms' are home based or everywhere they go? For the (C?)F-35s, is a 'security force' needed just for Cold Lake and Bagotville, or the FOLs? Trenton where they are deployed to on a halfways regular basis? Now, CF-18s will use a local strip for airshows. Will they now have to do shows only from their home bases? Not do airshows? If nothing else, the 'Demo Team' will be likely be out - I doubt they they can re-paint the plane every year.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If the goal is to provide security for certain tech because the US will demand it, would it be just where the 'platforms' are home based or everywhere they go? For the (C?)F-35s, is a 'security force' needed just for Cold Lake and Bagotville, or the FOLs? Trenton where they are deployed to on a halfways regular basis? Now, CF-18s will use a local strip for airshows. Will they now have to do shows only from their home bases? Not do airshows? If nothing else, the 'Demo Team' will be likely be out - I doubt they they can re-paint the plane every year.

Everywhere they Force Protection must be in place.

 

[QV]

Which is why some allies hire people specifically for the task, like the USAF and RAF.

I think the primary issues with retention and interest can be somewhat addressed if the CAF gets serious about incentivizing the things we want people to do. Make SDA/LDA tied to being in the field/at sea, then create instructor and shift worker allowances.

Why would anyone be a shift worker when you get paid the same as a person working M-F, plus getting all the shorts, specials, and sliders? Even Sobey's figured that out in the early 2000s, and offered me an extra $0.50/hour to work the overnight shifts.

There are many easy improvements that would positively impact morale and retention that are ignored. I have first hand experience in how badly shift workers are treated in the CAF. Gross mismanagement.

 

[dimsum]

If the goal is to provide security for certain tech because the US will demand it, would it be just where the 'platforms' are home based or everywhere they go? For the (C?)F-35s, is a 'security force' needed just for Cold Lake and Bagotville, or the FOLs? Trenton where they are deployed to on a halfways regular basis? Now, CF-18s will use a local strip for airshows. Will they now have to do shows only from their home bases? Not do airshows?

The US has F-35 and other demo teams at airshows. It just means that Abbotsford, Halifax, etc Airshows also need an FP element, which the US already does at their airshows for their F-35s, F-22s, etc.

If nothing else, the 'Demo Team' will be likely be out - I doubt they they can re-paint the plane every year.

The CF-18 Demo Team is already cut for 2025.

 

[lenaitch]

Everywhere they Force Protection must be in place.

The US has F-35 and other demo teams at airshows. It just means that Abbotsford, Halifax, etc Airshows also need an FP element, which the US already does at their airshows for their F-35s, F-22s, etc.

So, sounds like a larger and more mobile responsibility than just the two bases. At least Navy ships can take theirs with them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So, sounds like a larger and more mobile responsibility than just the two bases. At least Navy ships can take theirs with them.

That is correct- it will be more than two bases worth of FP troops. F-35s aren’t the only things to be protected,

 

[Furniture]

So, sounds like a larger and more mobile responsibility than just the two bases. At least Navy ships can take theirs with them.

Depends. Ships already have a force protection duty watch component when in foreign ports, but it's made up of sailors from the ship. A home port force protection organization would need to be made up of other personnel, otherwise the navy's current retention and recruiting crisis would look like a walk in the park.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Trying this again.

a problem with the chain of command can't be addressed by offloading their responsibility to someone else.

But that appears to be what happened. MP were given the power to investigate and lay charges regardless of a CO or CoC's wishes.
Why did that happen? I'm not entirely sure. I know a common complaint from MP was that previously they would recommend charges and the CO would sometimes say thanks while throwing the file in the garbage.

Its not one of the easiest trades. There are aspects to infantry that don't appeal to a lot of people who have options.

Not appealing to people doesn't make it not easy. I watched an infantry candidate pass their QL3 course where they didn't speak a word of English and the staff didn't speak a word of French. No other students were fluent either, just some very basic stuff. The infantry can be tough when it comes to physical fitness, resiliency, and toughness. But candidates don't require a lot of technical skill or smarts. At the DP1 level it's an easy trade IMO.

"Infantry lite" might be the wrong approach. You would need much more than three weeks of training. Convoy protection alone would require crewed weapons and tactics appropriate for vehicle ops in open and urban environments as well as a dismounted piece. There's nav/driving/command and control and lots of other training and qualifications that goes with just that one capability.

I'm not sure why force protection at an airbase would be protecting convoys. Maybe escorting vehicles too and from different locations on base? Tactics involved there would be very basic. FP doesn't close with and destroy the enemy, the same way close protection doesn't.

If you're looking at the functions you mentioned then there is already a trade for that, infantry (and armored I'd say). Considering the manning issues both of these trades have it's going to be difficult whipping up 500 more people. Do they deploy too?

Only option is to take all those foreign students and make a Foreign Legion of security guards.

 

[dimsum]

Only option is to take all those foreign students and make a Foreign Legion of security guards.

Hmm…a CFL, training base in Wainwright…5 years service then citizenship…

Do they have to learn both official languages too? Can I sign up?